If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

I've been thinking about this for a few days. There might be another approach.
The theory behind the Nicola method is that people who desperately need to feel included bow to peer pressure. I know this bi-polar personality. They lack self esteem and that's why they need to fit in with other people. Because they need to fit in with other people they don't have good defense mechanisms, they don't defend themselves and they easily conform because they want to fit in. Their low self-esteem and lack of defense mechanisms leads them to be incredibly passive-aggressive out of some kind of compensation. But they don't realise they are arseholes. They think of themselves as the 'nice guy' and they'll rationalise it and believe it. They couldn't imagine any reason why anyone would not see them as the nice guy? they don't rock the boat!
They don't just think of themselves as the 'nice guy' they identify as a nice guy. This is why they support selfless causes like feminism if they're a man, BLM if they're white, refugees if they're a citizen. They make a practice of virtue signalling because they feel the need to prove that they're the nice guy. Virtue signalling is akin to psychological states like a mid-life crisis where someone starts trying to act young as if it will convince everyone else, or middle-class signalling where people show off prestige to prove their identity. There is a certain desperation and hollowness to it, almost a cry for help.
So if you challenge an idea based on reason, this is not just a challenge of an idea, it's a personal attack on their identity as a nice guy. That's why they take arguments personally and get cranky and passive aggressive.
My theory is, an alternative to the Nicola line "Have I said something wrong?." When someone gets passive aggressive, we ask "Why are you being an arsehole?" This will throw them, because they have deceived themselves into believing they really are the nicest guy around and everyone else are arseholes, and we directly challenge that identity. The identity is the underlying problem, all other moral issues are secondary, and political issues are tertiary.
Asking "why are you being an arsehole?" will change the argument and their style of arguing. Up till now they've been on the offensive throwing passive aggression at you, but as soon as you suggest that they're an arsehole, their deep need to feel accepted will set them on the defensive, and they will try to convince you that they're not an arsehole, which means they'll engage in the discussion more honestly and accurately.
Time to bring you into this. No one here understands psychology better.

Silverchair Lyrics
"Anthem For The Year 2000"
We are the youth
We'll take your fascism away
We are the youth
Apologise for another day
We are the youth
And politicians are so sure
We are the youth
And we are knocking on death's door
Never knew we were living in a world
With a mind that could be so sure
Never knew we were living in a world
With a mind that could be so small
Never knew we were living in a world
And the world is an open court
Maybe we don't want to live in a world
Where innocence is so short
We'll make it up to you
in the year 2000 with...

I would say that I have a large vocabulary, but perhaps not an up to date one.
I do regularly find that my definitions are out of date, or though deception I've taken completely the wrong definition.
A good example of this is, at the start of the year I thought I identified as alt-right because the media were describing my favourite political commentators as alt right. People like Milo Yiannopolous. I was going around defending the alt-right claiming that it was a complete fabrication that the alt right are Nazis or even racist.
I often find my arguments go in circles because I've got a different definition of a word. A few days ago I was defending conservatism and conservative values for ages. After half an hour of arguing I found out my definition of a conservative is anyone who feels that the past was better and that society is moving in the wrong direction, and are therefore opposed to much change. He told me his definition of conservatism was a white male patriarchy that opposes social change because they don't want to lose control of their world domination. Sure that second example is fairly extreme and hyperbolic (and unfortunately I didn't make this up).
On a serious note whether it's my error or someone else's, this kind of thing happens to me all the time. Any advice?

It's chilling looking back at what I wrote, that the alt-right wasn't a racial thing. I was mostly watch mainstream media. The media was describing libertarians like Milo Yiannopolis as alt-right. So I assumed alt-right just meant something like, the people who were left wing but who have crossed over and voted for Trump. When you sent me video of Jared Taylor, I thought this is a smear on the alt right, to put people like Jared Taylor in with Milo Yiannopolis.
I've since learnt how wrong I was, especially after the events in Virginia yesterday. No wonder I was getting funny looks when I was telling people I was alt right.
Damn media.

I've just read the article and I'm feeling very aroused. Thanks for posting it! The world makes slightly more sense.
It turns out lacking much social insecurity makes me lightly autistic. It gives me special reasoning skills and makes me quite unpopular.
Whether this line works, I'll certainly be taking the theory into account in my arguments: When I make an argument against an idea that someone holds, the average person may see it as me just disapproving of them. Cowards.
I'll keep you posted.

An update on my quest to bring SJWs to reason.
I haven't managed to bring any across yet but I am developing quite a knack of defeating their arguments quickly, so I'll share some basics.
They see truth as relative, which means to them truth moves around from your point of view, which makes them very difficult to reason with.
They use relativist language, including strange definitions for many words, which means you'll argue in circles for a long time until you figure out they're talking about something entirely different. It's very important to keep an eye out for these words and try to define your words early or use different words.
They struggle with categories. For instance "you're against immigration, Hitler was against immigration, therefore you're in favour of genocide." They make these categorical errors all the time and they're really easy to pick up on, and back them into a corner.
They value people over truth. They base their morals around people and then come up with truth later, as opposed basing their morals on truth. I suspect this is why defeating them in debate doesn't affect them much.
They may be incredibly intelligent but that doesn't help them reason. They can turn all their intelligence against reason. It's almost like somebody has set their brain to work against them.
"The ends justify the means" is a common phrase you'll find in socialist literature. We all tend to project our values onto other people, so while libertarians like to read our own values of honesty and liberty into other people, it may not be there. And SJWs tend to read deception and dishonesty into us. Truth and honesty is the best policy and a good weapon against all this nonsense. The means are the ends, and there's no point in winning the culture wars if we give this up.
They are deeply authoritarian. They don't believe in liberal democracy and open debate. I have made a few of them openly admit it, and it horrifies me. They know full well that progressives are running society even though they'll argue it's the other way.
The main goal of a SJW in debate is to make his opponent accept their sense of guilt, either for being alive, or for being successful. Refusing to accept their guilt turns them very nasty. Because they turn nasty, the vast majority will pay lip service to SJW guilt publicly. So in their mind SJWs are used to winning emotional arguments even though the vast majority people think they lost the debate on rational grounds. There may or may not be much use engaging an SJW on rational grounds, the emotional argument is more important. Merely refusing to accept SJW guilt and giving reason why not is not winning the emotional argument in SJW eyes. In their eyes it's like giving up and refusing to stand for morals at all. That is not to say that we should accept their sense of guilt as our own, we shouldn't. We need to find another way to appeal to their emotions to win the argument.
If you can debate your way to underlying beliefs and get them to be honest about it, it is really abhorrent. It's a bit like the end of Atlas Shrugged when the bad characters are revealed for who they are. It is a lot like the way Stephen Hicks explains in this video:

Operation Paperclip: At the end of WWII the US imported West German scientists and academics into US universities to get an edge over the USSR in the cold war. Along with those academics they also imported the ideologies that made the Wiemar Republic the mess it was.
Western Culture is still in a state of psychosis. All of these years after the war our society is still so completely obsessed with the war and Nazis, that we see everything though that prism rather than the thousands of years of history we have. We try so hard to be the opposite of Nazi's that we're ironically becoming what the Nazi's were reacting against.

I completely agree.
The tagline at freedomainradio.com is "The largest philosophical discussion in the world". When you read that tagline you immediately think of the great philosophers, the great books, the great conversation spanning thousands of years. This site is not a book club. FDR was never intended to be a place for general philosophy.
The way I see it, Molyneux used to be about his own libertarian philosophy, but now he's about libertarian politics and social commentary. His shift is why this forum has lost its purpose.
To be relevant to Stephan Molyneux and his listeners this forum has to be re-purposed as a political forum and a place for libertarians to come together. If this really is a philosophy forum we would find someone who's primarily interested in philosophy to rally around.
Stephan Molyneux is far better known as a leading libertarian commentator than a philosopher. This forum could be a power base where libertarians come together and organise a political movement. Libertarians could come here to discuss how to influence others, and overthrow the established ideology. We could make that the mission of this forum. However we define the forum, it has to line up with what Moleneux is doing.
We need a mission-statement.

I'm halfway through Arthur Herman's - The Cave the Light. I've read a few histories of philosophy, this is my favourite. It covers the history of philosophy from the pre-socratics right through to the modern age. It doesn't go into their philosophies in depth, it more gives a narrartive to the history of philosophy, why each philosopher was needed, and how they impacted history. It focuses on how society/philosophy swings between Plato inspired philosophy and Aristotle inspired. It's 570 pages plus another hundred pages of foot notes/bibliography/index.
https://www.amazon.com/Cave-Light-Aristotle-Struggle-Civilization/dp/0553385666

They're not creating money out of nothing. They're stealing money.
In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand divides the world into producers and looters. There are only so many people producing and actually doing the work. Fiat money is only worth something because there are people working for it and producing. Gradually over time the Welfare state gets bigger and bigger as a proportion of the economy, untill there are not enough people producing to make the money worth anything. Excellent book. Totally recommend it.
In Plato's Republic Book 8, Plato describes how Democracy fails. He says people vote for leaders who promise more than they can deliver. Rather than accumulate wealth the state starts to go into deficit. Once a democracy goes into debt it is doomed. The Debt opens up a division in wealth between the rich and the poor. Eventually either the underclass revolt, or a demagogue comes along and mesmerizes the people with impossible promises. Once in office he raises taxes which kills the economy completely, and then he slaughters any opposition groups, and therefore the greatest thinkers.
As for whether it's deliberate or insane, look at the election in Britain last night. The Conservatives promised an austerity budget, slashing public health and other services, they were punished at the polls by Labour who promised to end Austerity. Also a democracy is dependent on a liberal society - ie a society that can think for its self, that is self regulated apart from the government/police. Now they're importing an authoritarian population from the third world, the government must crack down on security and surveillance. It seems deliberate.

Yeah it's not a perfect list. They addressed most of your issues in the introductory book. They put together the list in a committee of professors at a university. There were a lot of disagreements but everyone agreed most of the books in the set are important. Leaving out the Bible was a fierce debate but they went with the assumption that everyone already has one, maybe they did back then? They said that the science books they chose are good reads that describe the process they went through to come up with their ideas, and they remind you that anyone can be a scientist and you don't have to go through higher education. I don't understand the cult of Shakespeare, and they do need more Dostoyevski and Tolstoy. Orwells 1984 only came out in 1948 and this set was published in 1956. Everything except Freud would have been out of copyright in this set.
Years ago before TV we had a reading culture. People did relate to each-other through these books the way people relate through movies these days. And people felt more connected with their ancestors and their history. The great books are our Western Heritage. forgetting these books is letting Western culture die. When we discuss the ideas of the books of the past we keep those ideas alive and we can build on them.
Apart from just a discussion amongst people we know, this is a conversation among writers, continually referring to each-other and their ideas. Discussing what they agree and disagree with, so that philosophy can continue. Philosophy is a conflict between competing ideas. It's this conflict that is the conversation.